Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add mracal/vibe-engineering --skill fuzz-parser-inputsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mracal/vibe-engineeringWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/mracal/vibe-engineering/fuzz-parser-inputs)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mracal/vibe-engineering/fuzz-parser-inputs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mracal/vibe-engineering/fuzz-parser-inputs/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mracal/vibe-engineering/fuzz-parser-inputs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mracal/vibe-engineering/fuzz-parser-inputs.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00042 | $0.00695 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00278 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00139 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00069 |
Grade A, and why
vibe-fuzz-parser-inputs scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
86% identical to audit — 101 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
vibe-fuzz-parser-inputs
Every parser will eventually see input you didn't expect. Fuzz testing finds the crashes before production does.
When to Use This Skill
- Implementing any parser (YAML, JSON, XML, config, DSL)
- Processing user-supplied input
- Handling webhook payloads or API responses
- Parsing file formats
When NOT to Use This Skill
- The parser is a well-tested standard library (e.g.,
encoding/json) - You're only reading known, controlled input
- The parser is trivial (e.g., splitting a string by comma)
Steps
Go Fuzz Tests
-
Create fuzz test file (
parser_fuzz_test.go):func FuzzParseConfig(f *testing.F) { // Seed corpus from existing test fixtures files, _ := filepath.Glob("testdata/*.yaml") for _, file := range files { data, _ := os.ReadFile(file) f.Add(data) } // Add targeted seeds f.Add([]byte("")) // empty f.Add([]byte("{}")) // minimal valid f.Add([]byte("\x00\x00")) // binary f.Fuzz(func(t *testing.T, data []byte) { // Should never panic result, err := ParseConfig(data) if err != nil { return // errors are fine } // If no error, result should be valid if result.Name == "" { t.Error("parsed successfully but Name is empty") } }) } -
Seed the corpus from:
- Existing test fixtures
- Real production examples
- Known edge cases
- Minimally valid inputs
- Binary/garbage data
-
Run initial fuzz:
go test -fuzz=FuzzParseConfig -fuzztime=30s -
Record results:
- Crashes found
- New corpus entries generated
- Edge cases discovered
-
Fix crashes -- Every panic or unexpected behavior becomes a permanent test case
Other Languages
- JavaScript/TypeScript: Use
jest-fuzzorfast-checkproperty-based testing - Python: Use
hypothesisfor property-based testing - Rust: Use
cargo-fuzzwithlibfuzzer
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 97 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A ca7b2689204c
vibe-fuzz-parser-inputs is a skill published in the GitHub repository mracal/vibe-engineering (3 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 695 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to audit, differing in 101 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
evidence-first-debugging
Use when debugging a crash, lỗi, failing game, tool, build, service, script, or reproducible local code failure requires repro or reproduction, giả thuyết or ranked hypotheses, instrumentation, root-cause isolation, a minimal fix, regression proof, and a regression test.
load-soak-capacity-verification
Use when servers or online game services need controlled load, soak, concurrency, capacity, saturation, leak, queue, failover, recovery, and scaling verification with baselines and stop conditions; not for client frame budgets.
platform-device-compatibility-matrix
Use when a game needs a platform and device compatibility matrix across OS, hardware, GPU, memory, resolution, input, network, storefront, certification, test evidence, and support policy; not for store metadata preparation.
qa-test-strategy-and-coverage
Use when a game project, milestone, or feature needs a QA test strategy and coverage matrix across risk, test levels, platforms, environments, ownership, automation, regression, evidence, and exit criteria; not for one playtest session.
build-and-runtime-verification
Use when running build, compile, test, launch, or runtime checks and producing a verdict tied to exact commands, exit codes, artifact paths, limitations, and fresh evidence.
playtest-evidence
Use when planning or reviewing game playtests that need structured scenarios, participant context, observations, reproduction evidence, severity, and honest separation of observed findings from conclusions.